In this negligence action, plaintiff Ralph Williams sued defendant Marinemax after his fishing boat was stolen overnight from the defendant's fenced and locked boatyard storage area in 2007. The case was removed to federal court on diversity grounds. The court first granted the defendant's motion to strike an untimely expert affidavit submitted with the summary judgment opposition. On the merits, the court granted summary judgment to the defendant, holding that no duty of care was owed because the theft was not reasonably foreseeable given the security measures in place and the absence of any prior similar incidents at the location. The court therefore entered judgment for the defendant.
In Kilpatrick v. United States, the plaintiff claimed she was stopped by local police at the request of ATF agent Roegner and subjected to questioning and a search of her person and vehicle without consent, after officers observed her van displaying messages critical of the ATF in connection with the Waco siege. The defendants moved for summary judgment on her Bivens claims against the federal agents for alleged constitutional violations and her state-law claims against the United States under the FTCA. The court set forth the summary judgment standard requiring no genuine issue of material fact when viewing evidence in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, identified the two essential elements of a Bivens action, and noted that constitutional tort claims are not cognizable under the FTCA.
The case involved Henry Company Homes, Inc. suing Escambia County Engineer Christopher A. Curb under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging violations of due process and equal protection rights stemming from the denial of building permits for residential subdivisions. The court granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment. It reasoned that the defendant was entitled to qualified immunity because he acted within his authority and did not violate any statute or regulation that would create a civil rights cause of action, and there was no evidence of a substantive due process violation or arbitrary conduct.
The case involved Action Outdoor Advertising's applications for permits to construct two billboards in the small Town of Cinco Bayou, Florida, which were denied under the town's longstanding ordinance prohibiting off-premises signs, including billboards. Action Outdoor sued the town, raising constitutional challenges to the sign regulations. After the town enacted a new ordinance that retained the core prohibition on off-premises signs, the court determined that the claims against the prior ordinance were moot because the town's intent to ban billboards would persist even if other provisions were invalidated, and the new rules addressed any alleged constitutional defects. The court granted the town's motion for summary judgment, denied the plaintiff's, and dismissed the case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction on grounds of mootness and severability.
In Rogers v. Cisco Systems, Inc., plaintiffs alleged that Cisco and its executives made false and misleading statements about the company's financial performance and sales from 1999 to 2001 to induce stockholders to retain their shares, which led to significant losses when the stock value collapsed. The suit, originally filed in Florida state court and removed to federal court, asserted claims including violations of the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act (FDUTPA). Cisco moved to dismiss for failure to state a claim. The court granted the motion in part, concluding that FDUTPA does not apply to securities transactions as it would overlap with existing securities regulations and that similar state unfair trade practices acts have been held inapplicable to such claims by other courts.
In Silhan v. Allstate Insurance, homeowners sued their insurer Allstate for negligently or intentionally destroying the fire scene and most evidence after a house fire, claiming this impaired their ability to pursue a products liability suit against the dishwasher manufacturer and seller in a prior subrogation action. The court granted Allstate's motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim. The core reasoning was that Florida law imposes no common-law duty on an insurer to preserve evidence absent an explicit agreement or formal notice of the insured's intent to file suit, and the complaint alleged neither; the case was distinguished from precedents involving specific promises to retain evidence or statutory duties.